President Cyril Ramaphosa’s attempt to halt Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry came under judicial scrutiny, with judges questioning his legal team on claims the process would cause him irreparable reputational harm if allowed to proceed.
The first day of proceedings on Wednesday saw judges closely interrogate the President’s claim that appearing before Parliament’s impeachment committee would amount to public humiliation, with the bench questioning whether such harm had been sufficiently demonstrated.
Ramaphosa is seeking an urgent interim interdict to stop Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee from continuing its work while the courts consider his broader review application challenging the findings of Parliament’s independent Section 89 panel.
The independent panel, appointed by Parliament in 2022, concluded that there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and the law in relation to the theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm in 2020, recommending that Parliament consider establishing an impeachment committee.
Although the National Assembly initially rejected the panel’s findings, subsequent Constitutional Court litigation resulted in Parliament establishing the impeachment committee, which is now preparing to investigate whether the President committed impeachable offences.
Appearing for Ramaphosa, Advocate Wim Trengove argued that the impeachment process should be paused until after the President’s judicial review application, which is scheduled to be heard from 2 to 4 September.
He submitted that the independent panel had failed to properly determine whether there was sufficient evidence that Ramaphosa had intentionally violated the Constitution or acted in bad faith.
“For the misconduct to reach the level of an impeachable offence, you must find that the President intentionally transgressed the rules,” Trengove argued.
“In other words, that he knew of the rules and intentionally transgressed them.”
According to Trengove, the panel merely considered whether there was prima facie evidence without properly interrogating whether the evidence demonstrated intentional wrongdoing.
He argued that allowing Parliament’s inquiry to continue before that issue had been reviewed by the courts would expose the President to irreversible reputational damage.
“It is humiliating to put the President on trial,” Trengove submitted.
He added that impeachment proceedings carried consequences extending beyond removal from office, including the loss of presidential benefits and disqualification from holding future public office.
Trengove also argued that Parliament would suffer little prejudice if the inquiry were delayed by two or three months while the review was finalised.
However, members of the bench questioned whether Ramaphosa had established that such harm would in fact occur.
Judge Matthew Francis referred to former president Nelson Mandela’s appearance before the courts during litigation involving the South African Rugby Football Union (Sarfu), asking why Ramaphosa would suffer greater prejudice by participating in a public process.
“President Mandela went into the witness box. It did not bring the house down,” Francis remarked.
Responding, Trengove argued that the issue was not simply whether presidents could testify publicly but whether Parliament should be permitted to initiate an impeachment inquiry before the legality of the underlying Section 89 report had been determined.
He maintained that Parliament’s own rules were intended to protect a sitting president from undergoing such a process where the legal basis for it remained under judicial challenge.
Opposing the application on behalf of Parliament’s impeachment committee, Advocate William Mokhare argued that Ramaphosa’s application effectively sought to suspend the implementation of a Constitutional Court order.
He submitted that the Constitutional Court had already directed Parliament to establish and proceed with the impeachment committee and that neither the President nor any other organ of state could undermine that order through subsequent litigation.
The Economic Freedom Fighters also opposed the application.
Its legal representative, Advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto, argued that Ramaphosa had failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for a court to interdict another arm of government from exercising its constitutional functions.
Ka-Siboto submitted that because the matter raised separation of powers considerations, the President was required to satisfy a heightened legal threshold, which, he argued, the application had failed to do.
Outside court, uMkhonto weSizwe Party parliamentary leader John Hlophe criticised Ramaphosa’s application, describing it as an attempt to delay Parliament’s constitutional oversight role.
Hlophe argued that the Constitutional Court had already cleared the way for Parliament’s impeachment committee to proceed and accused the President of attempting to frustrate that process through further litigation.
He also criticised National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza for electing to abide by the court’s decision rather than oppose the President’s application.
The hearing continues on Thursday, when further argument is expected before the court reserves judgment on whether Parliament’s impeachment inquiry should be temporarily halted pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s judicial review application.